Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1 hour ago, myata said:

    It wasn't meant ever, or at all of course. Representative democracy achieved many good things, many too obvious to list. But, now at this time the perception is: it is stagnating. It has run its good course and there isn't many new and exciting opportunities ahead. Especially it relates to the countries with binary political systems; they are either in a stagnation mode, or if still doing reasonably well, in a autopilot running mode with more disconnected population at every cycle. We need solutions to involve citizens in democracy directly and seriously not baby sleigh ride style. But the system will reject all and any such attempts. It doesn't need citizens really. It has grown smug and comfy being just by itself. Just leave your taxes at the door, you duty. To us.

    I don't dispute the perception, and to add: my take on it is that democracy as a framework depends on the public sphere, which exists in all systems, and is as such dependent on public media.  

    I also agree generally with your call for solutions and more engagement - very much so.

    I don't think that we can say for sure that the system will fall, or the aforementioned chaos will consume it since it IS dependent on the public sphere and that sphere persists.

    There are other examples of new media formenting chaos... the results eventually balanced themselves on the new media.  JFK, for example, was considered by some to have won his televised debate with Nixon because of imagery, which in turn was seen as a bad thing.   

  2. 5 minutes ago, myata said:

    Just one above

    Ok, well... I am interested in having an assessment of the democratic reforms since western democracy arrived to see if your post is applicable or if it overstates things.

    Was universal suffrage not a new solution?  The social safety net or the New Deal?

    If not then you have to imagine a new solution being a top to bottom redesign of our political economic sphere, or a Mad Max scale collapse.

    If I had to guess, I'd bet that something more familiar emerges.

    Keep in mind that everything looks so strange right now because our media itself is populist.  So it's difficult to assess what is true.

  3. 5 hours ago, myata said:

    1. "You" who?

    2. Entitled and detached but benevolent bureaucracy?

    3. It may be much simpler: the entropy took its course.

    4. The populace doesn't care and the elites, don't want to see. What's coming.

    1. I meant "one" as in "one has to".  But really it's "we".

    2. If it works, I suppose.

    3. If you think that, then what comes next?  Another cycle of ruling class that assumes divine right?

    4. What IS coming?

  4. 10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

    You can mention CNN as many times as you want... 

    It's a strange kind of projection that happens, from people who seemingly became hypnotized by conspiracy videos the instant they saw them and started projecting that flaw onto anyone who casually watched cable and network news their whole lives because that was the main source of news..


    • Like 1
  5. 2 hours ago, robosmith said:

    Thanks for admitting that you want to descend back to the FF vision of racist slavery, misogyny, and persecution of LGTBQ minorities.

    You are wrong, this person didn't say that.

    If they were descending then that's a passive verb, referring to a direction being taken - in a general sense.  It could be driven by democratic processes.

    They clearly referred to a purge, which means removal of woke people presumably by taking away their rights or their lives.

  6. 29 minutes ago, robosmith said:

    Show us any solid evidence that Putin is willing to negotiate anything besides total surrender by Ukraine. 

    That's exactly what they're talking about - making the conquest of territory legal again.

    On 9/24/2023 at 2:05 AM, robosmith said:

    Will do nothing but ensure Trump wins.

    Seems like RFK is impacting Trump more.

  7. 22 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

    1.  The pro-SOGI exclaim that it’s about protecting gay and trans rights and preventing bullying and depression.  The anti-SOGO claim that the prevalence of pride flags, gender affirmation, and excluding parents from student information are indoctrination, statist, and a trampling of other rights.  

    2. Schools can prevent bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, respect legal gender transition identifiers, and keep parents in the loop (except where abuse is suspected) without removing the use of male and female pronouns, requiring the raising of pride flags, or teaching elementary students about alternative genders in the curriculum.   Even the mention of diverse sexuality can be left to older grades.  It doesn’t mean that if students ask the teach can’t respond factually, at least to older students.  Not sure what the age should be, but it’s not going to be perfect.

    3. I also agree that the trans definition needs clarification.  I think it must remain a third category, as biological sex can’t change except in the performative sense.  Basically we agree to pretend up to the point of men’s and women’s sports and communal male or female washrooms.  

    1. Yes that summarizes the debate.
    2.  Ok - now you are being specific.  That's all I'm asking for.  I'm not going to debate the specifics of your points - some of which I agree with and some I don't.  
    3. Some of what you're talking about isn't strictly decided at the classroom or even Ministry of Education level though, as they will defer to legal and mental health experts.  If you are going to the school, board of education, or Ministry and asking them to do something that their professionals don't agree with they will side with them not you.

  8. 4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    1. Trans rights are taking precedence over women’s rights, religious rights, and the right to free speech.  

    1. Two points: the courts are working through what 'trans rights' mean in our legal system.  There will be trade-offs as there are when rights are granted to newly defined groups. That includes the right to 'free speech'.   

    But I think I will stop there because the point you're making doesn't seem to me to be 'the opposite' of what I said. You're going into the details of some of the issues, whereas I was talking high level.   I stated that the SOGI protests overstate their case - maybe you are disputing that.  If so, I can give you lots of examples from the Facebook group supporting the protests.

  9. 6 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

    They push gender ideology and the worst aspects of woke cancel culture.  

    Believe it or not, I DO empathize with "old school" thinkers who are left behind by the new identity politics, having friends and family in this group.

    But people who rail against gender "ideology" tend to ignore the fact that transgender people are a recognized group legally, and that the system has always taught inclusion. 

    If you want things changed, you need to be specific.  People are starting to recognize that the opposition to SOGI has been very vague and overstates their case.


  10. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/31/viral-claim-hamas-holding-500-americans-hostages-in-gaza-isnt-true/?sh=7276d0e16c8b

    "Blackburn is incorrect about the number of hostages being held by Hamas. The Israel Defense Forces have said 230 people are being held by Hamas in Gaza, according to the latest figures released by the IDF. And obviously not every one of those 230 people are Americans."

    So interestingly more Americans are trapped in Gaza than are hostage ?


  11. 10 hours ago, August1991 said:

    I  checked the data. Real GDP per capita in 2020 is about twice 1970.

    We Canadians, on average, are twice better off.

    And in Canada, there is almost no risk. 


    Imagine someone in Cambodia in 1970  Or China.

    Can I get a cite ?  I look for these stats also but the ones I find don't align with yours, or others I find.  

    It's mind boggling that people aren't talking about this all the time.

  12. 39 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

    I don't see the issue with a black little mermaid.

    What I do see as problematic is this agenda to make roles that aren't held by people of color, all of a sudden held by people of color, to appear progressive. You know, vs the actor being the best possible person for the role.

    Again, still okay.

    Its the woke talking points that come with it, that get tiresome.

    Confusing. Are you okay with the black mermaid or no?  Is it problematic or okay?

    Is talking about it okay?

  13. Again - we had a national conversation on this in 1988 because Mulroney trusted what was then the public sphere to make a rational choice based on arguments.  Mulroney won the election and we got the FTA.  Then we got NAFTA, from the Liberals, without such a conversation.  By the time the Pacific Trade Agreement came in, I think that they had put in provisions that said the government wasn't allowed to tell us what was in it.

    I understand why the government thinks it's necessary to lie sometimes about, say, whether masks are a good idea, what's in Area 51, and so on... but these things aren't simple decisions and getting caught with your d*ck in the cookie jar makes people not want to eat cookies anymore, ever.

  14. 3 minutes ago, myata said:

    1. No wait, even before that: when you are planning to do something, even a small thing, you think right? Why are you doing it; is there a reason to do it?

    2. what could happen? could it go wrong, etc. Why would we have those things right above the shoulders if we never need them, except maybe for haircuts and shouting at the game?

    3. So why did we want to begin a massive, unique in the sane (and therefore developed) world immigration program? There had a reason, some reason one would think.. or not really eh?

    1. I said that at the outset: "The rationale is economic."
    2. The reasons to not do it, from a discussion I heard involving the German example, are political and centred around domestic attitudes to immigration.  I think it was Angela Merkel who compared Canada to Germany and determined Germany wouldn't be able to accept that many immigrants.  The things above the shoulders are attached to humans so their ideas aren't simply based on facts but emotions.
    3. See #1.

  15. 9 minutes ago, Legato said:

    You sir are being disingenuous. People have different opinions. However when someone does not have the same opinion as yourself ...

    Did you know that for most of our history on RePolitics memes were actually banned ?

    I refer to these as the good old days.

    It's not about you having a different opinion, it's about having your own opinion.

    What happens if I disagree with the meme ?  Are you going to email them in Belarus to come on here and defend their opinion ?

  16. 3 minutes ago, Legato said:

    1. My opinion if just as valid as yours,
    2. don't blame me for your myopic view.
    3. The source of all your problems is you. get over yourself.
    4. Leave the forum? After you sunshine.


    1.  Is it your opinion?  How convenient that a meme maker knows you well enough to make a meme for you.
    2. I didn't read your meme... maybe something about a Climate Change hoax ?  I don't know ... I don't respect meme eaters...
    3. That much I know.  But many of my problems originate from you.
    4. I've been posting for 20+ years on here.  I will die posting on here...

  17. 6 minutes ago, myata said:

    Please note the OP: no one else is bringing them at such a breathtaking pace. So it's not a given, not some kind of self-obvious truth.

    Why is that? What is special here and what are the reasons? Who explained?

    What is special here ?  I think we have an exceptional attitude towards immigration for one.  To get to the point where our systems are actually falling over due to the volume of immigration and not one political party is calling for the reduction or even talking about it is ... different, for good or bad.

    Nobody explained, but people have generally accepted it for good or bad.  

    Is it different from economic policy in general ?  I don't think so.  Kudos to Brian Mulroney and John Turner for bringing a discussion of international trade deals into Canadians' living rooms but I don't recall one since then.

  18. 1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

    1. Other experts differ, and so do I. For a young healthy person the risk factors drop to such low numbers, the benefit is debatable and the person need not be vaccinated

    2. ...  per government bureaucrat orders.

    3. Stay out of my health care decision, government man.

    1. Ok - devil in the details.  But there's also the benefit of reducing the spread to other people.
    2. Your hate of government people is yet another emotional aspect to this.
    3. You have to move out of Canada to get that.

    And there's a big part of my post you didn't respond to, where I talk about issues with the public sphere...

  • Create New...